Worcester City Council balks on panhandling ban

Wednesday

Nov 14, 2012 at 6:00 AMNov 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

By Nick Kotsopoulos TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

City Manager Michael V. O’Brien’s plan to address aggressive panhandling by making it unlawful for people to solicit money from motorists while standing in a public way received mixed reviews from city councilors last night.

While many councilors applauded the manager’s intentions to put the clamps on panhandling, some panned the aspect of his plan that would also put an end to so-called “tag days” — a longstanding practice in the city in which representatives of charitable organizations and youth sports groups solicit donations from motorists at intersections.

Councilors made it clear they could not support the panhandling ordinance recommended by the manager if it also meant that “tag days” would be banned.

“I’m not prepared to support any item that would take away tag days,” said District 3 Councilor George J. Russell, who pointed out that such fundraising efforts are important to many youth sports leagues, social service agencies and charities. “I’m not willing to support any item that takes away that (fundraising) ability for them.”

Meanwhile, two city councilors — Councilor-at-Large Joseph C. O’Brien and District 4 Councilor Sarai Rivera — said they believe the manager’s overall plan goes too far and would place another burden on an already stretched-thin Police Department.

Rather than having police go after panhandlers, they said they would like to see the city continue its outreach efforts to direct panhandlers to the appropriate resources, such as medical care, shelter, food, mental health services, substance abuse resources and workforce development.

“It’s almost like calling a mechanic to do a plumber’s job,” Ms. Rivera said in reference to having police deal with panhandlers rather than social service workers. “There are some really deep rooted issues here. We’ve given (outreach efforts) only a few months; some of that work and outreach was doing well and we need to give it more time.”

With no clear consensus on the matter, the council referred the manager’s plan to its Public Health and Human Services and Municipal Operations committees for a joint hearing.

With the proliferation of panhandling in the city, the council asked Mr. O’Brien to come up with a plan to address the issue. He subsequently recommended a pair of ordinances intended to address aggressive panhandling and making it unlawful for people to solicit money from motorists while standing in a public way, walking in and out of traffic on a street or standing in a traffic island.

But City Solicitor David M. Moore said any city ordinance or regulation of solicitation on public streets and sidewalks would survive under the First Amendment only if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

As a result, he said, allowing tag day solicitation while banning other solicitation would create a distinction based on the content of the speech or nature of the speaker and would not survive scrutiny under the Constitution.

While some members of the public last night argued that the panhandling ordinance was unfairly targeted at the poor, some councilors said banning “tag days” would similarly be a war on those socio-economic groups that rely on those fundraising efforts.

District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy said there are times when panhandling efforts in the city look very organized, so organized in fact that “it almost looks like Panhandlers Inc.”

Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain, meanwhile, reminded his colleagues that it was the council that asked the manager to develop a plan.

“This City Council said we have a panhandling problem in this city and asked the city manager to do something,” Mr. Germain said. “He initiated an outreach program, but it didn’t work. The manager has done what we asked. It’s incumbent upon this body to support the manager.”